revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Fresh Water from Salt Springs

Hi All,

 

In the epistle of James we find this bit of instruction:

 

James 3:11-12 wrote:

Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?  My brothers and sisters can a fig tree bear olives and a grapevine bear figs?  Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

 

Recently there have been several discussions where members of WonderCafe.ca are invited to consider an idea or two and those invited have raised misgivngs about the source responsible for the ideas.

 

I find the passage from James relevant to the whole of that discussion.

 

Questionable sources do not necessarily make false claims.  If we consider a stopped clock we note that it can tell the correct time at least twice a day and all other times but that it is wrong.  It may be only a little wrong and it may never be possible to be more wrong but twice, in a 24 hour cycle, it is correct twice.

 

The problem with stopped clocks is that even though they will be right twice in a 24 hour cycle because they are wrong every other possible moment of the day why would we bother to consult them.  I mean if a clock is stuck at 10:15 and we knew it was 10:15 what good is the clock?  And if it isn't 10:15 but that is all the clock can tell us what good is the clock?

 

In order for the clock to be considered useful we need to be able to rely on it to tell us not just when it is 10:15 but also when it is 10:16

 

So, speaking personally, while I know that there is none but the Godhead who can claim perfection and all timepieces less than the Trinity are going to be running fast or slow there will be some who run close enough to the proper time that I will either be slightly early or just a little late.  The only way I know which lesser timepieces are reliable is to compare them to the time that I know is reliable.

 

I believe in God.

 

So do a lot of other people.

 

I think about God and God's ways.

 

So do a lot of other people.

 

How can I trust other people and their perspectives, thoughts, opinions on God?

 

In another place on the internet I am involved in conversations that revolve around the subject of Autism.  Having a child on the Autism Spectrum of Disorders meant I had to learn some things about an issue I had heard of but never actually studied.  As luck would have it, my wife who is a Special Education Teacher, had a lot of really, really helpful resources that I could learn about Autism from.  I'm not by any means an expert on Autism.  I do know enough about it to have a detailed conversation with doctors and Special Educators about Autism.

 

And every now and then you run into somebody who believes something very strongly but actually doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

That happened recently on the Autism group when a new member decided to wax eloquently about the MMR vaccine causing Autism.

 

Now it is simply not true that the MMR vaccine causes Autism.  The only academic article ever written which lead to those claims was proven to be fraudulent and the doctor who was primarily responsible for it has his name stricken from the National Registry of Doctors in the UK as a result of a two year long inquiry which found him to have violated more than a handful of ethical and procedural guidelines which exposed his patients to undue risk and unnecessary procedures.

 

The doctor in question claims he is the victim of a conspiracy and those who are inclined to believe in the doctor continue to insist that there is a link between Vaccines and Autism.

 

Now, who are we supposed to believe about this alleged link.  The doctor who claims it exists or the doctors who claim that the study cited in the article was so grossly and ineptly carried out that it actually proves nothing?

 

I mean, the doctor was a real doctor.  The doctor treated real patients.  The doctor can point to parents of children who will gladly testify that he was a help when no other doctor was.  Isn't the most important thing about a doctor the fact that they have passed all the tests of knowledge and competency to earn a medical degree and not how properly or ethically they operate after they have proven their competency?

 

As a parent, when I was confronted with a doctor who tried to blame my son's Autism diagnosis on refrigerator mother syndrome, was it right for me to laugh as if he was making a joke?  I'm not a doctor how would I know if he is right or wrong?

 

In this case there were some glaring medical oversights that disqualified this diagnosis.  The first being that the doctor actually never observed interaction between my wife and my son.  You have to observe coldness from mother to child in order to even hope to make a refrigerator mother diagnosis.

 

The other is that the Refrigerator Mother theory of Autism has long been discreditted.

 

Oddly, the notion continues to persist in certain corners of the Medical World.

 

So to the notion that innoculating a child to increase their immunity to Measles, Mumps and Rubella actually causes them to develop Autism.

 

My experiences related to Autism means that I will never take any work by either Bettelheim or Wakefield seriously ever again.  Despite the fact that both of them once held distinguished careers in their fields.  They have effectually become stopped clocks, they are no longer useful for their intended purposes.

 

Can the same thing happen in the realm of theology and faith?

 

When it comes to matters of God can the same spring produce both fresh and salt-water?  Can fig-trees actually bear olives and grapevines actually bear figs?

 

Bearing in mind that nobody is perfect and all of us are prone to make mistakes when do we determine that the propensity to make a mistake is less important than the truth which only exists a few moments out of every day?

 

And while it is responsible to remember that we should always judge others fairly and according to the way we want to be judged ourselves when do we say, too much damage has been done by any particular timepiece for it to ever be relied upon for anything approaching the right time?

 

If I want you to trust me do I only have to be truthful with you when it is convenient for me to be truthful and if that is only twice a day is that enough for you?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Share this

Comments

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi John:

 

I have a stopped clock in my study, right in my field of view as I write. It is a hand-made wrought iron clock, made by my father many years ago. But the clockworks have stopped. So I moved the hands to midnight, and there they remained.

 

But I think my clock shows the correct time, all the time, and I believe my clock shows God's time. My correct time, or God's time, is no time at all. It is the absence of time: timelessness.

 

Some might argue that timelessness is not real, but I think it is— very real! I think that time, as most of us perceive it, does not exist. Time is a segmentation of eternity into handy segments. But this segmentation is not real, only a device that we have arbitrarily created to help us understand reality.

 

This insight has liberated me from the tyranny of time.

 

Under my stopped clock there is a poem:

 

 

Last Midnight

 

My clock struck twelve,

And then no more.

 

My clock got stuck,

Permanently,

Last midnight.

 

Zero hour

And

Twenty-four hour

Forever.

 

No bell tolls for the free.

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

I can relate Arminius.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

If you are referring in particular to a recent thread, I had no preconceived idea about or knowledge of the original source of the OP until it was brought up, but in this case and others I might have biases about the poster- which perhaps is unfair on my part- so I tend to take it with a grain of salt. If I am able to read the post for it's own merits without biases about the poster and discern whether or not the post has merit for the points it makes, without the mistakes of the original source getting in the way- that is best. But sometimes the poster's own reaction to critique that makes that hard to do. "test all things and hang onto that which is good" is good advice. Otherwise, you might find yourself in danger of idolizing the source who is a fallible person(s), and not noticing dangerous ideas lurking under the surface. My recent fascination with the Pope is a good example. I like most not all of what he is saying- but my eyes are still open and some things he said yesterday made me stop and question. I'm not going to follow blind even if I relate to some of what they say. Same with Spong. Same with any preacher.

Many of us are prone to looking for points of view that support our positions, or maybe our hopes. When I do (and I admit I sometimes do) it is with a view to doing justice, loving mercy(kindness), and walking humbly with God- because time might be an illusion but we still operate within it in this world- so we are called to operate according to those timeless principles-ever learning what they look like in action in this world, and what they do not look like in action in this world- which Jesus commanded when he said, "love God..." and he said, which is like unto it..."love your neighbour..." so, if the presenter of information does not have that in heart and mind and intent they may not even be open to the possibility that they have erred.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

The place where salt water and fresh water meet is called an estuary. Both are prevented from flowing into the other and a "brackish" water or brine is formed. It is used in preserving food. These areas are also dynamic ecosystems. Fresh water is essential to life and so is salt.

 

So I wonder if by using the analogy of salt water and fresh water should we also consider that no matter what we believe there is a process that will balance our truths and untruths. A place where the truths of one viewpoint can actually exist with the truths of anothers. Are there lesser truths that can lead to the highest truth? or does truth exist in and of itself? Is one sin greater than another so that we can only see the one that stands out the most? Don't we all bring something into the mix?

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi John:

 

We can get fresh water from salt water by distilling it, and we can graft different fruits together. But your question, as I read it, is: Can pure sources be trusted? Can they be abused?

 

My answer is "of course!" to both. Scripture can be trusted, and used for great good, but it also has been abused, and is being abused, to justify almost anything, including bloody murder. I am sure scripture was used to justify the Crusades, the torture, persecution and execution of heretics and witches, the Thirty Years War, and all kinds of atrocities and injustices, right up to the present day.

 

So is there a pure source?

 

I think there is: the pure, undifferentiated experience, in which we, presumably, experience the truth which is God. But, as soon as we interpret this experience, our pre-conceived bias enters, and the experience loses some of, or a lot of, its original purity. Although we can try to interpret our pure experience without pre-conceived bias, this is hardly possible. What is possible, though, is to act directly from the depth of the experience, without interference by our faculty of logic. Such "direct"  or "anti-logical" action, however, is not trusted in our society and culture.

 

In our culture, the scientific method seems to be the purest system for determining truth, but it cannot give us the truth about everything. Of everything that is scientifically knowable, only a fraction is known, and the horizon of what is knowable seems to recede faster than we gain new knowledge. What's more, there is a vast realm that, in all likelihood, is unknowable.

 

So what do we have to guide ourselves by? The traditional wisdom schools?

 

Yes, but they often are encumbered by rigidity and inflexibility, and also are handicapped by what I said above about scripture.

 

I think the unity of being is acknowledged by science as a universal truth. If we base our consciousness, conscience and awareness on the unity of being, then we can't go too wrong.

 

And, if we delve deeply into the pure undifferentiated experience, and actually experience the unity of being, as well as the unitive love that usually accompanies such an experience, and act directly from the depth of that experience, then we do what scripture tells us to do—with or without scripture. 

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

I posted this in the "other" tread and it relates here...

 

Again the truth is in the scriptures but the speaker may have ulterior motives. This does not change the truth within the scriptures. If it were not for Christians with ulterior agendas and unscrupulous less than Godly ways as history has shown, the religion would never have lasted as long as it has.

 

God was well aware of the fallibilities of man when He said to spread the original Gospel of the Kingdom. He knew man would try and use it to suit His own purpose, but He also knew the Scriptures would survive as a basis for a worldly empire and be there for those with eyes to see the truth cloaked in human hypocrisy as man once again tried to use God to create their own Kingdom.

 

Just like the saying hate the sin but love the sinner... love the scriptures but don't trust the messengers.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

If we sin, sin becomes part of our essence, IMO. We are not sinless, none of us. If we hate the sin, we hate all people.

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

We should hate our corrupted selves and hope for salvation from ourselves. That is the whole point.  In the meantime we are to love each other as ourselves, support each other and care for the damage done to each of us by our own or the actions of others.

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

not4prophet wrote:

We should hate our corrupted selves and hope for salvation from ourselves. That is the whole point.

What a terrible way to live.

 

 

not4prophet wrote:

In the meantime we are to love each other as ourselves, support each other and care for the damage done to each of us by our own or the actions of others.

I'd say treat each other as we wish to be treated, yes. No self-loathing required for that.

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

chansen wrote:

I'd say treat each other as we wish to be treated, yes. No self-loathing required for that.

 

 

Unless one is willing to be honest with themselves about the human cause for suffering, of which we are all guilty at some point or another.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

So hate yourself? Be my guest, but I don't think hating ourselves is going to solve anything. It used to work great as a mechanism to keep people in the flock, but young people are too smart to believe it any more.

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

Hating ourselves?...  or taking responsibility for that which we do that hurts ourselves and others.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Arminius,

 

Arminius wrote:

But I think my clock shows the correct time, all the time,

 

Except that it doesn't.  Time is measureable and a stopped clock measures nothing.  In fact, it only manages the appearance of a clock in function it is more akin to paperweight.

 

Arminius wrote:

and I believe my clock shows God's time.

 

Hard to argue with a belief.  

 

And yet, I imagine that the stopped clock is not the one you arrange your day with.  Your stopped clock is a refuge and not a foundation.  If you need to get up at a certain hour in the morning, you don't entrust the stopped clock with that responsibility.  If you want to properly cook dinner and need so many hours at so many degrees you don't trust that to a stopped clock and a busted oven.

 

So the question then becomes, why is God's time only that time when you have nothing better to do?  Why is it the leftover portions of the week when you can afford the luxury of not needing a working clock?

 

Arminius wrote:

My correct time, or God's time, is no time at all. It is the absence of time: timelessness.

 

Perhaps.

 

It may just be a language issue.  When time and God appear together in scripture there is a sense of God having infinite amounts of it, there is also a sense of God's ability to fill time rather than be dragged along by it.

 

God is not constrained by time.  Humanity is.  Some may feel the bonds of time more restrictively than others.  I imagine some Diabetics would not trust their health and well being to a stopped clock.

 

Arminius wrote:

Some might argue that timelessness is not real, but I think it is— very real!

 

Timelessness is real, it just isn't about time.  In the same way weightlessness is not about weight.  It is about the ease with which humanity can slip a particular shackle.  And that is really more about how we determine we will measure time.  If I measure quantitatively, then the clock is my ally.  The more precise the timepiece the greater my ability to manage and measure the units of time available to me.  If I measure qualitatively I am no longer looking at the duration of any moment so much as I am looking at how much experience I can pack into that moment.

 

No body ever loses track of time.

 

They simply switch tracks.  Time is still being measured.  It is now a problem that two individuals are measuring it differently.  Spouses waiting at a table in a restaurant are watching the clock on a different track than is the spouse who has bumped into a dear friend just around the corner from the restaurant.

 

Unlike most train accidents the inevitable collision happens only because these two trains are running on different tracks.

 

Arminius wrote:

I think that time, as most of us perceive it, does not exist. Time is a segmentation of eternity into handy segments. But this segmentation is not real, only a device that we have arbitrarily created to help us understand reality.

 

That thought might be valid if time was not connected to movement.  The measurements make things manageable and facilitate communication, like any language facilitates communication.

 

Arminius wrote:

This insight has liberated me from the tyranny of time.

 

Time is only a tyrant when somebody else is watching the clock.  A fact we immediately forget when we are the spouse at the table in the restaurant wondering where our beloved is.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Kimmio,

 

Kimmio wrote:

If you are referring in particular to a recent thread,

 

The particularly recent thread was the catalyst for this discussion.  It is an event that happens regularly at WonderCafe.ca and is not limited to any one poster.

 

Kimmio wrote:

I had no preconceived idea about or knowledge of the original source of the OP until it was brought up, but in this case and others I might have biases about the poster- which perhaps is unfair on my part- so I tend to take it with a grain of salt.

 

I would like to name poster bias as tangential to the discussion.  It has an intersect certainly but that is beside the point for the moment.

 

Kimmio wrote:

If I am able to read the post for it's own merits without biases about the poster and discern whether or not the post has merit for the points it makes, without the mistakes of the original source getting in the way- that is best.

 

Can that be done when the bulk of the post is not original to the user making that post?

 

If, for example, I cut and paste a little or a lot without doing anything more than saying, "Hey, read this."  What have I given that is unique to myself and is it unfair for others to presume that whatever bias is displayed by the source I point to is one that I might share?

 

And when it comes to original sources do we operate with a blank slate?

 

Kimmio wrote:

"test all things and hang onto that which is good" is good advice.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Kimmio wrote:

Otherwise, you might find yourself in danger of idolizing the source who is a fallible person(s), and not noticing dangerous ideas lurking under the surface.

 

Always a possibility though in all fairness, not a common mistake.  I think that it is more likely that we are endorsing persons as well as ideas when we share links to sourced material.

 

As a Calvinist I could probably find any number of quotes from Calvin or other Calvinists that make a particular point that I want to make.  I tend not to do that because if anybody really wanted to know what John Calvin or Herman Bavinck thought about X they's go and read John Calvin or Herman Bavinck.

 

I have been influenced by both, there is no reason to deny that and yet I am more than a simple regurgitation machine which barfs out quotes and pretends that is a conversation.  My life and my experience lead me to grapple with Calvin and Bavinck on a regular basis.

 

Kimmio wrote:

if the presenter of information does not have that in heart and mind and intent they may not even be open to the possibility that they have erred.

 

Even if they do come into the conversation with a love of God and a love of neighbour does that mean they source they quote as they share is of the same intent.

 

Satan quotes scripture as Jesus is tested in the wilderness.  Why would Jesus reject what Satan is proposing?  Jesus is not an anti-scripture guy so possibly, there is more to scripture than the minimal ability to quote it.  I'm mindful that on television, actors playing doctors can memorize a script full of medical terminology  but most wouldn't be able to pass a basic biology exam.  They sound compelling, like they know what they are doing, would you want Patrick Dempsey actually doing your brain surgery though?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

The place where salt water and fresh water meet is called an estuary. Both are prevented from flowing into the other and a "brackish" water or brine is formed. It is used in preserving food. These areas are also dynamic ecosystems. Fresh water is essential to life and so is salt.

 

While true it doesn't address the fundamental point of the wisdom being applied.

 

If I want fresh water why would I go to a salt spring?  If I want olives why would I go to a fig tree and if I want figs why would I go to a grapevine?

 

waterfall wrote:

So I wonder if by using the analogy of salt water and fresh water should we also consider that no matter what we believe there is a process that will balance our truths and untruths.

 

The analogy is not a values based analogy.  It is about getting what you are looking for.

 

If I want salt water then I need to know where to look for that.  If I want fresh water I need to know where to look for that.  And the same applies for olives, figs and whatever else one may be looking for.

 

What happens when somebody hands a cluster of grapes and says they picked them fresh from that palm tree?  We know something is off immediately because grapes do not grow on palm trees.  We know something is off but what it is that is off may not be evident.  If the generous individual wanting to share is insisting that he did pick them straight off of the palm tree then maybe they aren't actually grapes or maybe he simply isn't to be trusted.

 

Either way digging in uncritically may not be in our best interest.

 

waterfall wrote:

A place where the truths of one viewpoint can actually exist with the truths of anothers.

 

Respectfully I think that is a different converation.  It points more to respect rather than truth in advertising.

 

It isn't the relative merits of one kind of water against another or one kind of fruit against another.

 

It is whether or not one kind of water is what it is billed as.

 

Maybe nobody knows who David Berg is.  The name and the history didn't leap right out at me.  The threat detector on my computer did.  Even then I suspected that the problem was the site that the material was on and not the material itself so I started a search on David Berg and suddenly became alarmed.

 

Does David Berg know scripture?  He knows some of it.  If I can trust him on how the Holy Spirit acts should I trust him on his evangelism techniques?  Does his knowledge of how the Holy Spirit works mean we have to cut him some slack on the prostitution aspect of his ministry?  Does the owner of a brothel, by virtue of their familiarity with prostitution mean that they understand how the Holy Spirit works and we should embrace without reservation their evangelism method?

 

I hope we are more discerning than that.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Arminius,

 

Arminius wrote:

But your question, as I read it, is: Can pure sources be trusted? Can they be abused?

 

Essentially that is the heart of the matter.

 

Arminius wrote:

My answer is "of course!" to both.

 

So you are not opposed to the principle of discernment?

 

Arminius wrote:

I think there is: the pure, undifferentiated experience, in which we, presumably, experience the truth which is God. But, as soon as we interpret this experience, our pre-conceived bias enters, and the experience loses some of, or a lot of, its original purity.

 

So if I follow your position there is a pure source which we can only access as individuals.  The minute we attempt to share that pure source it has been contaminated?

 

Arminius wrote:

And, if we delve deeply into the pure undifferentiated experience, and actually experience the unity of being, as well as the unitive love that usually accompanies such an experience, and act directly from the depth of that experience, then we do what scripture tells us to do—with or without scripture. 

 

Not sure I follow what you are saying here.

 

Are you suggesting that fresh water and salt water are the same thing.  If not then you cannot have undifferentiated experience of water.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi not4prophet,

 

not4prophet wrote:

Again the truth is in the scriptures but the speaker may have ulterior motives.

 

Agreed.  Which should we endorse?  The truth in the scripture or the speaker with ulterior motive?

 

And when one is confronted with a speaker who has ulterior motive should we not consider everything they are responsible for?

 

not4prophet wrote:

Just like the saying hate the sin but love the sinner... love the scriptures but don't trust the messengers.

 

I'm not comfortable with a hermeneutic of suspicion where doubt is the default position.  That said, it is probably less harmful than a hermeneutic of trust, where the possibility of ulterior motive is never considered.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

If we sin, sin becomes part of our essence, IMO. We are not sinless, none of us. If we hate the sin, we hate all people.

 

Respectfully I think that this argument is too simplistic.

 

If I cannot drink salt water and survive it does not mean I cannot drink any water to survive.

 

As Arminius points out upthread, desalination becomes required.

 

It also needs to be pointed out that if I reject salt, because I cannot drink salt-water and survive I'm going to run into trouble later.

 

The typical problem with salt water is that the salt is too concentrated to be therapeutic.  Kind of like Tylenol.  One or two pills and my headache clears.  One or two bottles and I will be beyond worrying about mere headaches.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I don't disagree, John. And I certainly wouldn't want Hugh Laurie to diagnose any illness of mine! ;)

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

revjohn wrote:

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

If we sin, sin becomes part of our essence, IMO. We are not sinless, none of us. If we hate the sin, we hate all people.

 

Respectfully I think that this argument is too simplistic.

 

If I cannot drink salt water and survive it does not mean I cannot drink any water to survive.

 

As Arminius points out upthread, desalination becomes required.

 

It also needs to be pointed out that if I reject salt, because I cannot drink salt-water and survive I'm going to run into trouble later.

 

The typical problem with salt water is that the salt is too concentrated to be therapeutic.  Kind of like Tylenol.  One or two pills and my headache clears.  One or two bottles and I will be beyond worrying about mere headaches.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Just a minor point, but if you only drank fresh water the homeostasis of the body would be out of whack. Few people consider that overhydration is just as deadly as dehydration. Salt is essential and it's something that our bodies don't produce. In biblical times it was considered "white gold". Today we take it for granted that it will be on our tables.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

Just a minor point, but if you only drank fresh water the homeostasis of the body would be out of whack.

 

Is that presuming there is no other salt source in our diets?

 

waterfall wrote:

Salt is essential and it's something that our bodies don't produce.

 

Which is not being denied.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

revjohn wrote:

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

The place where salt water and fresh water meet is called an estuary. Both are prevented from flowing into the other and a "brackish" water or brine is formed. It is used in preserving food. These areas are also dynamic ecosystems. Fresh water is essential to life and so is salt.

 

While true it doesn't address the fundamental point of the wisdom being applied.

 

If I want fresh water why would I go to a salt spring?  If I want olives why would I go to a fig tree and if I want figs why would I go to a grapevine?

 

waterfall wrote:

So I wonder if by using the analogy of salt water and fresh water should we also consider that no matter what we believe there is a process that will balance our truths and untruths.

 

The analogy is not a values based analogy.  It is about getting what you are looking for.

 

If I want salt water then I need to know where to look for that.  If I want fresh water I need to know where to look for that.  And the same applies for olives, figs and whatever else one may be looking for.

 

What happens when somebody hands a cluster of grapes and says they picked them fresh from that palm tree?  We know something is off immediately because grapes do not grow on palm trees.  We know something is off but what it is that is off may not be evident.  If the generous individual wanting to share is insisting that he did pick them straight off of the palm tree then maybe they aren't actually grapes or maybe he simply isn't to be trusted.

 

Either way digging in uncritically may not be in our best interest.

 

waterfall wrote:

A place where the truths of one viewpoint can actually exist with the truths of anothers.

 

Respectfully I think that is a different converation.  It points more to respect rather than truth in advertising.

 

It isn't the relative merits of one kind of water against another or one kind of fruit against another.

 

It is whether or not one kind of water is what it is billed as.

 

Maybe nobody knows who David Berg is.  The name and the history didn't leap right out at me.  The threat detector on my computer did.  Even then I suspected that the problem was the site that the material was on and not the material itself so I started a search on David Berg and suddenly became alarmed.

 

Does David Berg know scripture?  He knows some of it.  If I can trust him on how the Holy Spirit acts should I trust him on his evangelism techniques?  Does his knowledge of how the Holy Spirit works mean we have to cut him some slack on the prostitution aspect of his ministry?  Does the owner of a brothel, by virtue of their familiarity with prostitution mean that they understand how the Holy Spirit works and we should embrace without reservation their evangelism method?

 

I hope we are more discerning than that.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

What would you say is the process for discerning truth?

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

What would you say is the process for discerning truth?

 

Excellent question.

 

Can I presume from the question that any process I provide will not be tested?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

Touche. We should test all things? What is the theological "scientific" formula in order to arrive at the correct conclusion rather than one that is false?

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi waterfall,

 

waterfall wrote:

Touche. We should test all things?

 

That has been suggested.

 

waterfall wrote:

What is the theological "scientific" formula in order to arrive at the correct conclusion rather than one that is false?

 

That is the rub.

 

It isn't just about what is being said, it is also about who is doing the saying.

 

Anyone reading you and I in conversation has the ability to pick up scripture and read it for themselves.  As should be evident to any unbiased observer, every Christian hears something slightly different.  Christians are called to be part of communities which gather regularly to worship, study and pray so that the only universe where interpretation happens is not in the universe which begins and ends with my self.

 

Whether David Berg is speaking accurately about the Holy Spirit or not matters only if David Berg can be trusted.

 

I don't trust him.

 

That might ultimately be to my own detriment.

 

Of course, I believe that there are more out there capable of comprehending the truth than David Berg so I will look elsewhere for truth.

 

And, as has been pointed out, those not able to discern come here and find David Berg is a reference and why would we ever lift up as a reference somebody we wouldn't support?

 

Satan quotes scripture, do we trust him with it?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi John:

 

Timelessness, weightlessness and spacelessness have a lot to do with time, weight, and space, because either of these can only be defined in terms of its opposite. We need each pole to define its opposite. Timelessness is not an absolute, but neither is time. My metaphor of the stopped clock essentially reminds me of the union between opposites: the alpha and the omega: the beginning and the end, time and timelessness.

 

So I stand corrected: Both, time and timelessness, are God's time.

 

And, of course, time is measured by movement. In science, it is the movement of light through space. But timelessness and spacelessness are the essential counter dimensions (or counter non-dimensions) to the dimensions of time and space, and are part of the eleven-dimensional universe of String Theory. (God's universe?)

 

I think reality can be likened to a dual track with trains running in opposite directions. Each direction is true, but ultimate truth is both directions simultaneously. Alas, we mortals can only be in one train and on one track at a time, not in both simultaneously. Except, perhaps, in contemplative thought. But we can always get out at the station and try the opposite track and train.

 

My stopped clock really is a contemplative metaphor for being in both time and no-time—simultaneously. A physical impossibility? Yes. But, to me, a contemplative reality.

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

 

A clock may measure past, present, and future, but as we only actually live in the moment, the very now, then a stopped clock is a more accurate example of the now.

 

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

Arminius wrote:

I think reality can be likened to a dual track with trains running in opposite directions. Each direction is true, but ultimate truth is both directions simultaneously. Alas, we mortals can only be in one train and on one track at a time, not in both simultaneously. Except, perhaps, in contemplative thought. But we can always get out at the station and try the opposite track and train.

 

The original sin came, not from trying one train and then another, but in taking one and proclaiming it was leading to the other's destination. Such is the way throughout history and today of using good to justify evil or the alternate.

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hello again, John:

 

In answer to your second post to me: I am not opposed to discernment! Even when immersing ourselves in the "pure, unconceptualised experience," we need to discern the experience to make it real for us and share it with others.

 

Although it is possible to act spontaneously and intuitively, directly from the "pure experience," we humans are thinkers and conceptualisers, and have to conceptualise our experience in order to make it real for ourselves. The "pure" source—which, by the way, is accessible to everyone because it is mere unconceptualised experience—does not become "contaminated" but rather created or re-created by conceptualising and sharing it. Thus, it no longer is what it really was but a re-creation of what it was. Conceptualising is creating.

 

Salt water and fresh water are not the same thing, they are not even opposites. As I interpret or discern James 3:11-12,  the pure experience of God (any unconceptualised experience is, in my opinion, a pure experience of God) remains pure only when conceptualised or discerned purely. When discerned impurely, the pure source becomes contaminated.

 

But what is pure conceptualisation or discernment? Calvinist doctrine? Christian theology? Science-based philosophy? Traditional wisdom? Free association or creation?

 

I would say we should discern mainly from the feeling of the pure experience of being, because this is when we experience God or ultimate Truth directly and most purely.

 

Most people who frequently and deeply immerse themselves in the pure experience get the strong feeling of universal unity and unitive love. (Science, by the way, supports the principle of universal unity.) If we discern from that feeling, and consider the traditional wisdom schools and scientific insight, then we can't go too wrong.

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi n4p:

 

Yes, we only live in the moment. Past, present, and future are man-made creations to orientate ourselves by. This is what the metaphor of the stopped clock reminds me of.

 

 

Hitler, who is known as the greatest evildoer of modern times, justified doing evil by copying Nietzsche's philosophy of nonduality, of "being beyond good and evil."

 

One can't (ab)use the pilosophy of nonduality for evil purposes. Essentially, if one is beyond good and evil, then one is beyond good as well as beyond evil, and therefore does not commit evil. Amorality is not immorality!

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

You mean like the majority of world leaders today?

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

waterfall wrote:

What would you say is the process for discerning truth?

 

Yes, excellent question. It has been around for a long time.

 

 

What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good?

And do we need anyone to tell us these things?

-From the Dialogues by Plato

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

not4prophet wrote:

 

You mean like the majority of world leaders today?

 

 

 

Yes, mainly the monetarist elite, who are the real world leaders of today.

 

Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange, to be used for the good of all. But, ever increasingly, a monetarist elite are manipulating and abusing the medium to make more and more of it for themselves, to the detriment of all.

 

 

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

 

By amalgamating to a one world monetary system, how similar is this globalisation to what prompted the change at Babel? (Gen 11: 4-8)

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

The world's capitalists are abusing or usurping godly powers for egocentric purposes. This has backfired on us before, and will do so again.

 

I think globalisation is not working for us. The sooner we get away from it the better.

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

We may wish to but the procedures are in place to monitor every man, woman, and child of consequence on the planet and also control the ability to buy and sell. Never before in history have we had the technology. They have learned well over the last century how to counter that which has previously caused problems by way of rebellious people,  The end result of vanity, greed and pride are coming to fruition and the tree is not bearing good fruit. But this too must pass.

 

You may find the latest of interest, trumping even the NSA.. and Canadians need remember that any activity involving American technology may be legally monitored.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/17/big-brother-alert-cameras-cable-box-monitor-tv-vie/

 

 

airclean33's picture

airclean33

image

Hi Arminius--You posted--Timelessness, weightlessness and spacelessness have a lot to do with time, weight, and space, because either of these can only be defined in terms of its opposite. We need each pole to define its opposite. Timelessness is not an absolute, but neither is time. My metaphor of the stopped clock essentially reminds me of the union between opposites: the alpha and the omega: the beginning and the end, time and timelessness.
__________________________
Airclean-post--This is very interesting, as I was about to ask John, about time in Space. For there are no hrs or days. There is no night or day. Your clock would be no good then . Unless it was marked in army time.But that only if you keep track of 12 hrs night and 12 hrs of day. Also speed is clocked in speed of light . I believe that being the distance that light travels at a given time.I think it is a year. How do they, measure time when traveling in space.?

Neo's picture

Neo

image

I found this to be a good description of time, especially the last line.

The Tibetan wrote:
The spiritual man is not conscious of time, once he is separated from the physical body. Time is the sequential registration by the brain of states of awareness, and of progressive contacts with phenomena. There is no such thing as time on the inner planes, as humanity understands it. There are only cycles of activity or of non-activity.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi airclean33:

 

You ask: "How do they measure time when travelling in space?"

 

 

There was a young lady named Bright

Who travelled much faster than light.

She departed one day

In the relative way,

And returned the previous night.

 

 

If one wants to beat time, all one has to do is to fly from Calgary to Kelowna. On that flight, one arrives half an hour before one leaves.surprise

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

James sets up the image John quotes above with several images illustrating the power of the tongue. In particular he notices the peril following the injudicious use of language. He echoes the proverb: "Life is in the tongue, and death."
.
The tongue is something of a potter, giving shape to air expressed as speech. Common air, without which there is no human being, shaped to unite or divide. That shaping of air giving rise to conflict and bloody battle. The same air shaped by another point of view to serve the ends of unity and peace.
.
Something about apples of gold in settings of silver?
.
George
.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

Both kinds of water are blessings. Fresh water is very refreshing. Salt water is often suggested after dental surgery as an oral rinse.

airclean33's picture

airclean33

image

Hi Rev John --I am sure you may know of the place called Marah. God seems to have His own way of dealing with salty , or bitter water. Ex15:22-26. I find it something to think about. That He had Moses make the salty dirty water sweet , by throwing a tree in it. God then told Israel , or should I say , Remined them of an older pact . I myself think of another tree that would be use in the future. To clean other dirty water that has salt as well . The Cross. John19:35. God Bless. --airclean33

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi airclean33,

 

airclean33</p> <p> wrote:
Hi Rev John --I am sure you may know of the place called Marah. God seems to have His own way of dealing with salty , or bitter water. Ex15:22-26. I find it something to think about. That He had Moses make the salty dirty water sweet , by throwing a tree in it. God then told Israel , or should I say , Remined them of an older pact . I myself think of another tree that would be use in the future. To clean other dirty water that has salt as well . The Cross. John19:35. God Bless.

 

Marah is actually a good example of the outcomes for the proverb.

 

The water was unfit to drink.  it would have made some ill and likely killed others.  So that water needed to be changed into something more suitable.

 

Once it was changed and after the Israelites had drank their fill did the spring revert to its original state or did the water remain good and safe to drink?

 

Those who knew the spring at Marah to be unfit certainly didn't go there to drink the water.  Once it was transformed nobody went there expecting to find water unfit to drink.

 

And the proverb is not about what can or cannot be redeemed it is about expectations.

 

If you want salt-water, don't go to a fresh water spring.

 

If you want fresh water, don't go to a salt-water spring.

 

Or to update the imagery.  Don't walk into a Coke plant if what you really want is a Pepsi.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

Luke 14: 34 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

Matt81's picture

Matt81

image

My Grandfather's Clock was too tall for the shelf,

So it stood 90 years on the floor.

It was taller by half, than the old man himself,

Yet it weighed not a penny-weight more.

It was bought on the day that the old man was born,

and it timed his whole life through and through.

But it stopped - short - Never to go again.

When the old may died.

 

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe